Poor moderation in the NUIG forum

Ficheall

It's evidently very difficult to get people to moderate fora on boards.ie, so I'll try not to be overly harsh in my criticism. However, the moderators of the NUIG forum seriously need to calm down. Since they will not, understandably, take this advice from me, I would hope that perhaps some of you higher-ups might have more luck, or even that some of the NUIG forum's other members might lend an opinion.

My first major gripe with the new moderators was when I asked for permission of musical.x to start a thread on an event rather than placing it in the designated NUIG Events thread on the grounds that the NUIG Events thread was a complete failure. Permission was granted. Kittyee Trix then moved the thread into the NUIG Events thread, which is perfectly understandable. After a bit of fuss then about its uselessness the NUIG Events thread was deleted. So I started up my thread again, only for musical.x to delete it on the grounds that I had not requested permission. She claimed that the permission obtained from her two days prior to set up the exact same thread was not enough, so I had to ask permission and start the thread yet again.

So technically, yes, she was within her "rights" to do so, but a little common sense on her part would have saved us both hassle. This is the nature of the majority of my complaints, I think. That the current moderators lack the basic "cop on" which moderators ought to have, and that they seem to be moreso driven by some crazy urge to wield "new" mod powers than the desire to maintain a worthwhile forum.

There's the SU elections farce, where we now have 3 threads instead of one, including this thread where posters were nonsensically required to post who they were supporting for the SU elections.
The warning there promised that failure to post in the first thread before posting in the second thread would result in a ban lasting, ceteris paribus, until after the elections finished. After the elections were over, a handful of people were banned for ten days for posting in the second thread without first posting in the first. I realise they were contravening the initial instruction in the thread, but that the punishment meted out was not held to the same standard of pedantry is disappointing, especially after the moderators having gone to so much effort to repeatedly direct people to follow its instruction.

There's this thread where some lad posted trying to ask a couple of questions about NUIG before deciding whether to accept his offer of a place here. Unaware of the NUIG forum's bumping etiquette, he bumped his thread after a mere 18 hours or so. Understandably, musical.x corrected him on this, saying it had only been a couple of hours since he first posted. In his next post (since deleted) the poster apologised and asked how long he ought to wait before bumping his thread, but he also pointed out that it was not merely a couple of hours since he had posted but a day. musical.x then took umbrage at his correction of her mathematical abilities and SNIPped that portion of his post, instructing him not to question a moderator. (That post having since been deleted, I'm not sure of the exact wording.) I then posted that the poster had been correct in his calculations, and pointed out that moderatorship does not endow the receiver with papal infallibility. This too, of course, was snipped.

This post received a warning. It was unjustified in my eyes, so I PM'd musical.x to query it. She informed me that Hegemonic Overlord had not read the forum charter instructions regarding the SU Elections. I responded that there were in, in fact, no instructions in the charter regarding the SU elections. She responded to this saying that it was of concern only for Hegemonic Overlord. While I would argue that shoddy moderating is the concern of all posters on a forum, I understand that it is boards policy only to discuss a warning with the recipient. I do take issue with the fact that the moderator appears a little clueless as to what's contained in the forum charter she keeps citing and inferring her SNIPping selections from.

And then this, today. musical.x seems to have missed the point of a discussion forum.
And for Christ's sake - it's a "moderator's decision". That's not really part of the issue here, I know, but the mistake is there again and again, and if the forums are going to be riddled with the phrase, then it would be nice if it were correct.
Also empacher's post was reasonable and a couple of hundred words long, if I recall correctly. Yet the entire thing was snipped just because the mod felt her authority being undermined.
It's extremely irritating to go to the effort of writing a post, only for someone to come along and SNIP a large chunk out of it just because you disagree with them. This also holds the disadvantage, from the poster's point of view, that future readers of your SNIP will assume that you have said something untoward, whereas as often as not in these cases, the fault seems to lie with the moderator.
Also - after KittyeeTrix offering her on-thread warning, musical.x, clearly not appeased, went and snipped empacher's entire post and slapped him with a red card.

This post would suggest that at least some of the other forum members agree with me.

If things continue as they are, the NUIG forum will die.

Yes, I feel I'm being somewhat petty with all of this, but things on the forum show no signs of improving, so set a horse to catch a horse, or however it goes...

You'll excuse the lack of an Irish version of this post, owing to the length, I'm sure.



TL;DR - I feel it should be pointed out to the NUIG mods that being a moderator does not make them infallible, and that they need to calm down.

empacher

I received an infraction from musical.x even for arguing a mod's decision but

musical.x wrote: »

empacher, the point of the forum is to help people. If you do not want to help then do not reply to a post.Simple.

is not a decision but a statement.

In my post I outlined what a google search yields and exactly what tab to click to access the information that the OP had requested. Yet the whole thing was sniped.

KittyeeTrix

My first major gripe with the new moderators was when I asked for permission of musical.x to start a thread on an event rather than placing it in the designated NUIG Events thread on the grounds that the NUIG Events thread was a complete failure. Permission was granted. Kittyee Trix then moved the thread into the NUIG Events thread, which is perfectly understandable. After a bit of fuss then about its uselessness the NUIG Events thread was deleted. So I started up my thread again, only for musical.x to delete it on the grounds that I had not requested permission. She claimed that the permission obtained from her two days prior to set up the exact same thread was not enough, so I had to ask permission and start the thread yet again.

So technically, yes, she was within her "rights" to do so, but a little common sense on her part would have saved us both hassle. This is the nature of the majority of my complaints, I think. That the current moderators lack the basic "cop on" which moderators ought to have, and that they seem to be moreso driven by some crazy urge to wield "new" mod powers than the desire to maintain a worthwhile forum.

Posters made it clear that they thought that the "Events thread" was killing off any interest in NUIG events and so we decided to do away with it as per demand. As you say musical.x was within her moderation rights to delete your post so I cannot see "the crazy urge to wield new mod powers".

There's the SU elections farce, where we now have 3 threads instead of one, including this thread where posters were nonsensically required to post who they were supporting for the SU elections.
The warning there promised that failure to post in the first thread before posting in the second thread would result in a ban lasting, ceteris paribus, until after the elections finished. After the elections were over, a handful of people were banned for ten days for posting in the second thread without first posting in the first. I realise they were contravening the initial instruction in the thread, but that the punishment meted out was not held to the same standard of pedantry is disappointing, especially after the moderators having gone to so much effort to repeatedly direct people to follow its instruction.

I decided upon the suggestion of another mod to adopt the SU election thread procedure which was in operation in the DCU thread. For clarity Ficheall I must stress that posters were not required to state who there were supporting in the election but only to state if they were afilliated with any election candidate.
I decided to even take a soft approach and did not issue any warnings etc when posters openly ridiculed the thread, again this hardly points to heavy-handed moderation. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt when I saw that you had posted without posting in the afilliations thread first once the rule had been set into place!!!

There's this thread where some lad posted trying to ask a couple of questions about NUIG before deciding whether to accept his offer of a place here. Unaware of the NUIG forum's bumping etiquette, he bumped his thread after a mere 18 hours or so. Understandably, musical.x corrected him on this, saying it had only been a couple of hours since he first posted. In his next post (since deleted) the poster apologised and asked how long he ought to wait before bumping his thread, but he also pointed out that it was not merely a couple of hours since he had posted but a day. musical.x then took umbrage at his correction of her mathematical abilities and SNIPped that portion of his post, instructing him not to question a moderator. (That post having since been deleted, I'm not sure of the exact wording.) I then posted that the poster had been correct in his calculations, and pointed out that moderatorship does not endow the receiver with papal infallibility. This too, of course, was snipped.

Again Ficheall you have questioned a mods action on thread which you seem fond of doing. You should know by now that if you have a problem with a mod decision that you take it to PM; you didn't and so your post was snipped

And then this, today. musical.x seems to have missed the point of a discussion forum.
And for Christ's sake - it's a "moderator's decision". That's not really part of the issue here, I know, but the mistake is there again and again, and if the forums are going to be riddled with the phrase, then it would be nice if it were correct.
Also empacher's post was reasonable and a couple of hundred words long, if I recall correctly. Yet the entire thing was snipped just because the mod felt her authority being undermined.
It's extremely irritating to go to the effort of writing a post, only for someone to come along and SNIP a large chunk out of it just because you disagree with them. This also holds the disadvantage, from the poster's point of view, that future readers of your SNIP will assume that you have said something untoward, whereas as often as not in these cases, the fault seems to lie with the moderator.
Also - after KittyeeTrix offering her on-thread warning, musical.x, clearly not appeased, went and snipped empacher's entire post and slapped him with a red card.

I must say Ficheall that this is not the first time that you have felt it necessary to point out a grammatical error by musical.x which is totally unnecessary.
I did offer an on-thread warning but musical.x felt the situation warranted more and so went ahead and issued Empacher with a card. This is a situation which is between Empacher and musical.x and so I will not comment on it as I haven't spoken to musical.x about it

This post would suggest that at least some of the other forum members agree with me.

If things continue as they are, the NUIG forum will die.

Yes, I feel I'm being somewhat petty with all of this, but things on the forum show no signs of improving, so set a horse to catch a horse, or however it goes...

You'll excuse the lack of an Irish version of this post, owing to the length, I'm sure.

TL;DR - I feel it should be pointed out to the NUIG mods that being a moderator does not make them infallible, and that they need to calm down.

I'm not sure what you want to happen with regards the moderating of the forum Ficheall. You admit as much that you have challenged musical.x's decisions on thread (even in threads that you haven't been participating in) but then find fault when she attempts to moderate your responses.
If you did not feel the need to constantly challenge then you wouldn't have as many snipped posts and perhaps the forum would run a lot smoother...and the moderation would not seem so heavy-handed

The major upset for some reason in the past few weeks was the thread regarding the SU elections. I was quite surprised by the reaction to a simple request to post any afilliations to election candidates. I have zilch interest in politics be they at a national level or at the college level. I looked at the DCU approach and decided to implement it in the NUIG forum but to say the backlash/outrage was OTT would be an understatement.

BhoscaCapall

KittyeeTrix wrote: »

The major upset for some reason in the past few weeks was the thread regarding the SU elections. I was quite surprised by the reaction to a simple request to post any afilliations to election candidates. I have zilch interest in politics be they at a national level or at the college level. I looked at the DCU approach and decided to implement it in the NUIG forum but to say the backlash/outrage was OTT would be an understatement.

Here's hoping that the whole "don't question us in the thread" protection is not extended to this forum...

The rules implemented by you for the SU Elections were beyond redundant. What difference did it make who any user declared their affiliation with? Literally nothing to stop somebody lying. They had absolutely no effect other than another opportunity for you to be all HURR DURR I AM MOD, READ MY RULES.

Probably up there with the Soccer board charter as one of the most pathetic things I've seen on Boards.

KittyeeTrix

Here's hoping that the whole "don't question us in the thread" protection is not extended to this forum...

If you had read the charter for the feedback forum you would realise that this is not the case...

The rules implemented by you for the SU Elections were beyond redundant. What difference did it make who any user declared their affiliation with? Literally nothing to stop somebody lying. They had absolutely no effect other than another opportunity for you to be all HURR DURR I AM MOD, READ MY RULES.

I am a busy mother to 4 children and am in my final year of college for which I travel 23 miles a day to get to and so my time is extremely precious at the moment.
The last thing I want is to have to draw more work on myself (and by that I mean moderating duties). It is in my interest that the forum runs smoothly but I am not the only one responsible for that. Responsibility also lies at the feet of the forum posters.....It was simple enough request and while many didn't take to it there were many who felt able to post in it and move on!

Probably up there with the Soccer board charter as one of the most pathetic things I've seen on Boards

Not sure what that has to do with anything but sure okay.

Ficheall

KittyeeTrix wrote: »

As you say musical.x was within her moderation rights to delete your post

You must have missed my point about the lack of common sense.

KittyeeTrix wrote: »

so I cannot see "the crazy urge to wield new mod powers".

That's a running theme. I just chose to introduce it there.

KittyeeTrix wrote: »

I decided upon the suggestion of another mod to adopt the SU election thread procedure which was in operation in the DCU thread. For clarity Ficheall I must stress that posters were not required to state who there were supporting in the election but only to state if they were afilliated with any election candidate.

I can't find the thread in the DCU forum, but I'll believe you. For clarity, it makes feck all difference which of the two you required posters to state.

KittyeeTrix wrote: »

I decided to even take a soft approach and did not issue any warnings etc when posters openly ridiculed the thread, again this hardly points to heavy-handed moderation. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt when I saw that you had posted without posting in the afilliations thread first once the rule had been set into place!!!

Why should you issue warnings when posters ridicule a thread?
And you did indeed give me the benefit of the doubt when I failed to notice the new rule which was posted eight minutes before I posted a response breaking said new rule. Thank you again for not banning me from the forum for the week.

KittyeeTrix wrote: »

Again Ficheall you have questioned a mods action on thread which you seem fond of doing. You should know by now that if you have a problem with a mod decision that you take it to PM; you didn't and so your post was snipped

I would much prefer it if the mods' actions were less questionable.
If questioning a mod decision via PM yielded any sort of worthwhile result then I would do that.

KittyeeTrix wrote: »

I must say Ficheall that this is not the first time that you have felt it necessary to point out a grammatical error by musical.x which is totally unnecessary.

You are absolutely correct! It is the second, if I recall correctly. The first was in a PM to point out that an apostrophe had been included in the plural of "poster" in the charter when ye had edited it. That was intended as a tongue-in-cheek comment, as at that time I still considered musical.x to have some sense not to take offence at absolutely everything on the internet. It was corrected and added a small bit more credibility to the charter which one is so often referred to.
I have refrained from pointing out any further such errors because fora frown upon grammar Nazis, though the same errors crop up all the time.

KittyeeTrix wrote: »

I'm not sure what you want to happen with regards the moderating of the forum Ficheall.

Sorry, perhaps I've not yet made it clear what I feel should happen - I think that both you and musical.x need to do less moderating. I'm not suggesting that you no longer be moderators, simply that you take your feet off the gas pedal, so to speak.
The NUIG forum is a walk in the park. Nothing happens there. I've moderated fora elsewhere where hundreds of spam posts might be deleted of an afternoon, where the posters are extremely abusive to the point of threatening physical violence to people who disagreed with them (and I don't mean wargame sites with some kid over in Korea threatening "I'm going to kill your whole family!" - I mean people in the same neighbourhood naming places of work and family members' habits), people trying to hack into others' accounts... There's porn and there can be pictures that would make a 4chan member grimace (hyperbole). And that's fine - it's the internet, and not as classy a place as boards.ie.
My point is just that the posters on the NUIG forum are practically adults, not the toddlers you seem to be treating them as.


I know that moderating is a time-consuming and thankless task - I would strongly suggest that you stop making unnecessary work for yourselves.

g'em

KittyeeTrix and/ or musical.x could you let the Edu CMods know that this is here? They'll most likely know about the ins and outs and background to all this. It's never as simple as it looks

I'll have a read through this in the meantime, and I'm moving it into Help Desk to put a halt to any impending bandwagon circling.

KittyeeTrix

No problem G'em.......
I PM'd one of them already last night but will PM the other now:)

Ficheall

g'em wrote: »

I'll have a read through this in the meantime, and I'm moving it into Help Desk to put a halt to any impending bandwagon circling.

Apologies - I was advised that Feedback was the correct place for such a thread.

g'em

Ficheall wrote: »

Apologies - I was advised that Feedback was the correct place for such a thread.

You're grand, there's still a lot of confusion about what goes where

I know nothing about the history of the posters, Mods or forum in question so I'm just going to address the things that have been discussed here. I don't like apportioning blame but I think there's a few things that everyone involved can - excuse my dippyness here - self-reflect on. I'm not going to get in the he-said / she-said elements because we'd be here all day.

Ficheall has claimed that the NUIG forum is overmoderated - a quick look at the posting history of both Mods suggests a very average amount of on-thread interaction in a Mod capacity but in the most recent interactions Ficheall's name does seem to crop up a lot.

With the events thread incident I can see both sides. The Mods deleted following fairly extensive feedback and then a user (Ficheall) comes along and posts up a new thread that somewhat undermines the whole conversation. It seems to be a case of communication breakdown more than anything.

Make the Mods life easier Ficheall, ask first just to make sure There's two active Mods, hundreds of users, a bit of forward thinking will mean a lot to them.

Personally I think all the Edu Forums are mad for entertaining SU election threads. It requires an inordinate amount of Moderating that goes way above and beyond what any Mod is reasonably expected to do. I commend the Mods for giving it a shot but for future reference feel free to ban SU threads if you so wish.

If a forum isn't used to the posting in bold tactic it can look a bit heavy handed initially - you need to make a call as to whether your presence needs to be felt or would a quite deletion of posts/ moving of posts do the same purpose? While it's nice for posters to make life easier for Mods, as Mods you can make the posting experience as hassle free as possible too.

Ficheall if you started correcting my grammar in a post or Pm I'd be hard pressed not to lose the head - it's a pure wind-up tactic and while I understand that you were trying to make a joke of things it was about as badly timed and out of context as a 'joke' could be! Time and place sir, time and place.

I don't see anything other than a little bit of over-eagerness in the Moderation of the NUIG forum tbh. There are times when a gentle prod/ moe/ delete would have sufficed in place of a bold on-thread post, but it's a learning curve and I'm not overly concerned. Ficheall you seem to come up on the Mod radar's quite often - I'm not sure why that is but maybe there's some room for manoeuvre on your side too?

KittyeeTrix

I have read your post g'em and will certainly take on board many of your points.

You are correct in saying it is a learning curve and I'll admit on reflection that the bold on-thread posts may have come across as "ooh, look at me, I'm a Mod". It wasn't intended that way but in future I'll do as you recommend and just delete quietly if possible:)

As you've said, there is room for manoeuvre on both sides and I would like to see this happen so that the forum can remain a helpful positive environment as I've found it to be in the past.

Thank you for your time g'em

Ficheall

g'em wrote: »

With the events thread incident I can see both sides. The Mods deleted following fairly extensive feedback and then a user (Ficheall) comes along and posts up a new thread that somewhat undermines the whole conversation. It seems to be a case of communication breakdown more than anything.

Make the Mods life easier Ficheall, ask first just to make sure There's two active Mods, hundreds of users, a bit of forward thinking will mean a lot to them.

With all due respect - the new thread did not undermine the conversation. And I did ask, and permission was granted - that was where my problem with the subsequent deletion arose.

g'em wrote: »

Ficheall if you started correcting my grammar in a post or Pm I'd be hard pressed not to lose the head - it's a pure wind-up tactic and while I understand that you were trying to make a joke of things it was about as badly timed and out of context as a 'joke' could be! Time and place sir, time and place.

That's fair. I did say it wasn't really part of the issue and only pointed out that it was irritating.

g'em wrote: »

I don't see anything other than a little bit of over-eagerness in the Moderation of the NUIG forum tbh.

That is precisely my point. Hopefully, they will calm down a little as a result of this thread.

g'em wrote: »

Ficheall you seem to come up on the Mod radar's quite often - I'm not sure why that is but maybe there's some room for manoeuvre on your side too?

That's probably because I post more and am less tolerant of needless moderating. And I had been trying to cool it and ignore their moderating, but the moderating here tipped me over a little.

Ficheall

g'em wrote: »

If a forum isn't used to the posting in bold tactic it can look a bit heavy handed initially - you need to make a call as to whether your presence needs to be felt or would a quite deletion of posts/ moving of posts do the same purpose? While it's nice for posters to make life easier for Mods, as Mods you can make the posting experience as hassle free as possible too.

Personally, I've no issue with highlighting moderating posts with bold - it's a good idea and has been the norm in the NUIG forum, if I recall correctly, for some time.
I'm wary of the "quiet deletion of posts" you seem to be advocating here - could you perhaps expand on that?

Toto Wolfcastle

I've been in regular contact with the NUIG mods since they were made mods. I think they're doing a good job. There's always a learning curve involved when someone is made a mod. I know there was when I was first made a mod.

I don't think there is a need to wield mod powers involved here. I think that both mods are eager to help. Again there is a learning curve involved here. It takes time to figure out when it's appropriate to act or not.

I think that a few posters have been questioning mod warnings and decisions on thread and tbh I would recommend at this point that a warning (yellow card) is issued from now on when this happens because tbh some people are just not getting that it's not allowed. I usually add in a note to explain this when I post a warning. On a similar note, posting in bold does not mean that the mod is on a power trip. It helps to identify mod posts more easily, especially if people are just skimming through threads.

As regards the SU threads, the idea of having a separate affiliation thread was recommended by someone who had seen it working in another forum. The mods therefore thought it was worth a shot. It obviously wasn't popular with everyone, but this happens when new things are tried out.

As I said, I think the mods are doing a good job and obviously are willing to take feedback on board.

empacher

I think the issue more is in the way they word everything for example

musical.x wrote: »

empacher, the point of the forum is to help people. If you do not want to help then do not reply to a post.Simple.

That isn't a mod decision. To me its a statement.

KittyeeTrix wrote: »

Ficheall and Empacher: Consider this an on-thread warning to stop further discussion of a Mod decision on thread.
Please have a read of the forum charter if ye need to reacquaint yourselves with forum rules......

Thank you:)

This is.

On Ficheall's highlighted thread I replied to musical.x post with a long post detailing exactly how to get the information.

Then KittyeeTrix gave her on-thread warning

So I didn't post again. A few hours later I receive an infraction from musical.x and the infraction just to me looks like one she's over ruling her co-mod. It was completely unnecessary as I hadn't replied since KittyeeTrix's warning.


Arguing with a mod decision is a loose term, but its being made very hard to recognise a mod decision from a statement.

empacher

Are we still able to reply?

Spear

empacher wrote: »

Are we still able to reply?

All helpdesk posts are pre-moderated and require approval to appear.

g'em

Ficheall wrote: »

Personally, I've no issue with highlighting moderating posts with bold - it's a good idea and has been the norm in the NUIG forum, if I recall correctly, for some time.
I'm wary of the "quiet deletion of posts" you seem to be advocating here - could you perhaps expand on that?

Why be wary? I say it as an alternative to an infraction I.e. in the poster's favour.

For example:

poster: *makes post that mildly contravenes charter*
Mod: can we reel it in a bit and get back on topic?
Poster: omfg, that's so unfair!1!1!1

The mod can either infract or delete the post and pm the poster, its a decisionthry can make to their own discretion.

empacher that's really just semantics. If a mod posts in bold why not err on the side of caution and pm for clarification instead of questioning them on-thread?

g'em

Bobblehead Panda wrote: »

I've been in regular contact with the NUIG mods since they were made mods. I think they're doing a good job. There's always a learning curve involved when someone is made a mod. I know there was when I was first made a mod.

I don't think there is a need to wield mod powers involved here. I think that both mods are eager to help. Again there is a learning curve involved here. It takes time to figure out when it's appropriate to act or not.

I think that a few posters have been questioning mod warnings and decisions on thread and tbh I would recommend at this point that a warning (yellow card) is issued from now on when this happens because tbh some people are just not getting that it's not allowed. I usually add in a note to explain this when I post a warning. On a similar note, posting in bold does not mean that the mod is on a power trip. It helps to identify mod posts more easily, especially if people are just skimming through threads.

As regards the SU threads, the idea of having a separate affiliation thread was recommended by someone who had seen it working in another forum. The mods therefore thought it was worth a shot. It obviously wasn't popular with everyone, but this happens when new things are tried out.

As I said, I think the mods are doing a good job and obviously are willing to take feedback on board.

Thanks Bobblehead Panda, this is great feedback. To be honest it looks like the NUIG Mods are open minded and very willing to improve what seems to be great job being done. Fair play.

If posters want the Mods to ease up then I'd suggest not behaving in a way that requires Mod intervention in the first place. If anyone has anything new to bring up then speak now, but I won't be leaving this open much longer.

empacher

One thing I would like to see improved and think all would find it acceptable, is they should remember it is a college forum, so just because we give a smart (not insulting) reply to a post doesn't mean were being cheeky, having a go at someone. Its just the nature of college people. to be quick witted and slightly sarcastic.

Ficheall

g'em wrote: »

Why be wary? I say it as an alternative to an infraction I.e. in the poster's favour.

The issue raised was that the moderators were over-enthusiastic in snipping posts. You are encouraging them to simply delete posts they have issues with instead. You think this is preferable from the poster's point of view?

g'em wrote: »

For example:

poster: *makes post that mildly contravenes charter*
Mod: can we reel it in a bit and get back on topic?
Poster: omfg, that's so unfair!1!1!1

The mod can either infract or delete the post and pm the poster, its a decisionthry can make to their own discretion.

Kudos on your dialogue example, however, you again seem to have overlooked the fact that the issue raised was with the aforementioned "discretion".


Nevermind, I'm sure the issue will just have to resolve itself.

Thank you for your time.

g'em

Ficheall wrote: »

The issue raised was that the moderators were over-enthusiastic in snipping posts. You are encouraging them to simply delete posts they have issues with instead. You think this is preferable from the poster's point of view?
.

The Mods on the forum know what they're doing - if they delete a post its because the poster is at fault. The onus is on the poster, not the Mods, to make sure they post within the rules.

I think we're done now.